Minnesota Archbishop John Nienstedt has penned a verbose letter calling on Catholics to support the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, which many priests read to their parishes last week. Nienstedt claims that he opposes discrimination against “brothers and sisters living with same-sex attraction,” yet admits that the entire reason to support the amendment is to keep gays and lesbians from marrying:

First, some ask, “Why is a constitutional amendment necessary?” Well, the fact of the matter is that politicians and activists are working right now in Minnesota to redefine the institution of marriage from one that bonds a man and a woman to any children born from their sexual union into another that licenses the romantic preferences of same-sex adults. [...]

We know that some who are seeking to redefine marriage experience same-sex attractions. Our brothers and sisters living with same-sex attraction are beloved children of God who must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity.

Every sign of unjust discrimination in this regard must be avoided. People with same-sex attractions, like others in society, are productive citizens, community servants, good friends and our beloved family members.

At the same time, however, it is important to know that the effort to ensure that the definition of marriage remains as between one man and one woman does not take away anyone’s existing rights or legal protections. As Catholics, we believe that all people should be able to visit loved ones in the hospital, pass on their property to whomever they choose, and have access to employment, housing and the basic necessities of life.  Saying “yes” to God’s plan for marriage will not change any of this.

Nienstedt’s letter is an exemplar of cultural abuse, simultaneously feigning compassion while advocating discrimination. It may, in fact, have had the opposite effect, as Catholics for Equality reported an uptick in lawn sign requests, with many reporting they walked out of their churches during the letter’s reading. According to the Facebook group, “I am Catholic. I am voting NO!”, many churches did not even read the letter. Nevertheless, the Minnesota Catholic Conference remains one of the largest donors to the amendment campaign, an alliance between the conference, Minnesota Family Council, and National Organization for Marriage.

Washington Bishop Blase Cupich similarly wrote to parishioners earlier this month, urging them to oppose marriage equality so that opposite-sex couples continue to get “special support and recognition.”

A day after taunting his opponent with the endorsement he was scheduled to receive from a Massachusetts boxing legend, Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) had to KO the event.

Micky Ward, the subject of the 2010 biopic The Fighter, was all set to endorse Brown until he learned that that the freshman Republican opposes LGBT rights and labor unions. Mark Wahlberg played Ward in the multiple-Academy-Award-winning film.

The Lowell Sun reported Friday that Ward initially told the paper day that he was set to endorse Scott Brown’s re-election, but changed his mind shortly after:

Roughly a half-hour after Ward confirmed he was backing Brown, ‘The Fighter’ called back. He said he had given his endorsement a little more thought. “I can’t support Scott Brown,” Ward said. “I just can’t do it.”

Within 30 minutes, Ward either did some Googling or someone close to him reminded him about where Brown stood on some hot-button political topics. “I found out Scott (Brown) is anti-union and I’m a Teamster guy,” said Ward. “I found out he’s also against gay marriage and I say if you love someone you should have the same rights no matter who you are.”

Brown has consistently opposed marriage equality and has a lengthy history of working against the LGBT community. He voted against the AFL-CIO’s positions 79 percent of the time in 2011.

Sixth in a series examining how anti-LGBT Senate candidates have worked to hurt the cause of equality.

After losing his 2006 re-election after his infamous bullying of an Indian-American campaign tracker who he called “macaca,” former Sen. George Allen (R-VA) is seeking to return to the Senate. In June, he won the Republican nomination to run against former Gov. Tim Kaine (D) for the open seat of retiring Sen. Jim Webb (D). Unlike Kaine, who has a solid record of supporting equality, Allen has amassed a consistently anti-LGBT record.

Over his time as Governor of Virginia, in the U.S Senate, and as a candidate:

1. Allen said homosexuality was not “acceptable” and should be “illegal.” In a 1994 radio broadcast, then-Gov. Allen told listeners that he didn’t want his children “even seeing the news of some of these things here, thinking that, this is acceptable behavior.” He added: “I don’t think this is acceptable behavior… and as a matter of government policy I don’t think we should condone that sort of behavior.” In the same broadcast, he praised Virginia’s unconstitutional Crimes Against Nature law –which made private consensual sex between same-sex adults a felony — saying “It’s against the criminal law in Virginia, that homosexual acts are illegal, and I think should stay illegal.”

2. Allen has vigorously fought to stop any recognition for same-sex unions. As Governor, he signed Virginia’s state defense of marriage law in 1997. Allen campaigned for the 2006 state constitutional amendment that banned all state recognition of same-sex unions. He co-sponsored the “Federal Marriage Amendment.” He continues to reaffirm his support for both the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act and a federal constitutional amendment, noting “My stand on marriage is clear: I believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman.”

3. Allen opposed Hate Crimes protections for LGBT Americans — and still does. Though he promised in his 2000 Senate campaign that he would support adding sexual orientation to the federal hate crimes law, in 2005 he changed his mind. “I wouldn’t define it as a flip-flop,” his Virginia state director told reporters. Allen’s reasoning? He feared “some courts that would use that as a building block toward civil rights status, which he is opposed to.” In other words, he worries that treating terrorism against LGBT Americans in the same way as the law treats terrorism against other minority groups would be okay if it weren’t for the risk of a slippery slope that might mean LGBT Americans would have other civil rights. Perhaps unaware that President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law in 2009, on Allen’s current campaign website he bizarrely promises to “vote against adding sexual orientation to federal hate crimes statutes, as he did in 2005.”

4. Allen opposed adding employment protections for LGBT people. Fearing anything that would raise sexual orientation to civil rights “status,” he has never supported the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or other efforts to end anti-LGBT discrimination. In 2004, the Human Rights Campaign listed him as refusing to adopt a voluntary office policy not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Allen’s civil rights record is not much better for other minority groups–he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and even voted against making Martin Luther King Day a holiday in Virginia.

5. Allen opposed allowing same-sex couples to raise kids. In his 1994 anti-gay radio tirade, he said he opposes same-sex couples raising kids because it is “not in the best interests of a child to be raised in that environment.” His view has not evolved — last year, an Allen spokesman told Politico that the former Senator has never been a supporter of same-sex couples adopting and that he “agrees with Governor [Bob] McDonnell’s [R] recent decision to keep current adoption regulations in place.” Allen also backed efforts to allow adoption agencies to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. His campaign website notes that he “does not support same-sex couples adopting children.”

6. Allen fought against same-sex couples being eligible for low-interest home loans. As Governor, he backed a restriction preventing the Virginia Housing Development Authority from making low-interest home loans to LGBT families. “Governor Allen doesn’t agree with these relationships and is not going to be advocating these relationships in his administration. This could establish a precedent that could lead to a redefinition of what family is,” an Allen spokesman noted at the time, adding that homosexuality was “basically viewed by the governor as an unnatural relationship.”

7. Allen opposed allowing LGBT servicemembers to serve openly and opposes chaplains conducting same-sex ceremonies. In 2000, he criticized his Senate race opponent’s support for allowing gay and lesbian Americans to serve in the military as “Vermont values.” Allen told the Veterans of Foreign Wars in the same campaign that he opposed using the military for “social experimentations.”

Watch Allen explain why he still supports the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act:

While some anti-LGBT politicians quietly oppose equality, Allen puts his opposition front-and-center in a special section on his campaign website. Allen’s return to the U.S. Senate would be a huge threat to LGBT people and families.

People Can Change is an ex-gay program that targets men with “unwanted same-sex attractions” and takes them on bizarre weekend retreats for a “Journey Into Manhood.” Its founder, Rich Wyler, was profiled by NPR last year for being ex-gay, but NPR failed to mention the fact that he profits off of this junk therapy to the tune of $200,000 a year, $50,000 of which goes directly into his pocket. To promote their next weekend retreat, the group has released a survey it did of “people who have experienced or are seeking sexual-orientation change, as well as therapists and leaders of ministries that support such change efforts,” and the results are laughable:

• 53 percent of respondents said their unwanted homosexual behaviors were reduced or eliminated.
• 38 percent said heterosexual attractions emerged or increased.
• 58 percent said any remaining homosexual attractions became less troubling.
• 69 percent said their self-esteem improved.
• 69 percent said their shame diminished.
• 71 percent became more self-accepting.
• 66 percent felt more at peace.

The sample of this study is people who profit off of bogus junk science and their brainwashed victims. These numbers have absolutely no validity and are part of Wyler’s scheme to reinforce society’s heterosexism while lining his pockets. Every major medical organization has said that sexual orientation cannot be changed and that the most helpful way to counsel people struggling with their identity is to affirm it and help them to do the same. If attractions are unwanted, only the “unwanted” can actually change.

Ted Cox once went undercover to Journey Into Manhood, and opened his tell-all by describing the erection he felt from the man sitting behind him in “The Motorcyle” hold. The entire weekend is dedicated to exploring (hypothetically non-sexual) male-male intimacy, which may very well create the illusion of help by actually just providing a fix for the men in attendance. How shameful that the very experience that seemingly allows them to feel comfortable with who they are is used to reinforce just how wrong they should feel about who they are. The psychological manipulation is obvious, and reprehensible.

Watch the new “Journey Into Manhood” promotional video:

An unofficial group of LGBT alumni and their allies from Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio was recently threatened by the school after exposing condemnations of homosexuality in its course curriculum. The group, now known as “Franciscan Gay Alumni & Allies,” sent a press release this week exposing the class:

Franciscan University continues to class gay people with murderers and rapists.Outdated prejudices appear to be given more weight than scientific truth at Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio. A recent survey of Franciscan University’s course offerings found this active course description on their website:

SWK 314
DEVIANT BEHAVIOR focuses on the sociological theories of deviant behavior such as strain theory, differential association theory, labeling theory, and phenomenological theory. The behaviors that are primarily examined are murder, rape, robbery, prostitution, homosexuality, mental illness, and drug use. The course focuses on structural conditions in society that potentially play a role in influencing deviant behavior.
3 credit hours (Bold font added for emphasis)

As the press release goes on to point out, homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder decades ago, so its inclusion under “deviant behavior” is a direct attack on the lives of gays and lesbians. Franciscan University actually responded to the press release — with a cease and desist order:

I am advising you that you have no right to use the Name of Franciscan University, its logo or any other reference to the University in any of your activities. This statement by me is as General Counsel to the University. Should you not comply with my demand that you cease and desist, I will take all measures available to the University to interdict your activities as they relate to the University.

Thus, the group removed the word “University” from its name, but not its press release.

Franciscan University currently maintains accreditation by the Higher Learning Commission and is ranked as one of the Young America’s Foundation’s top 10 conservative colleges. The school is one of many Catholic Universities that sued the Obama administration over the Obamacare contraception guarantee, and even dropped its student insurance program in protest. Clearly, this is a school that cares more about imposing its own narrow beliefs than even respecting its students and alumni.

Focus on the Family and the Alliance Defending Freedom have released a new resource they call the Anti-Bullying Policy Yardstick. Under the guise of “helping parents protect their children” the guide actually features an elaborate scheme to ensure religious bullying is protected in schools while students most likely to be targeted for harassment are made more vulnerable. Here are these anti-gay groups’ bullying policy ideals:

• Bullying policies should use “precise” definitions. The goal of this is to prioritize “free speech” over a safe learning environment. ADF even suggests that some forms of harassment might be “objectively reasonable,” implying that the bully should always be given the benefit of the doubt while the impact on the victim is disregarded.
• Bullying policies should not apply to “religious, political, philosophical, or other protected student speech.” Like states that have tried to pass similar laws, this amounts to a “license to bully.” Given that anti-gay bullying is often justified by religious beliefs, such an exemption would invite bullying to persist, defeating the point of a comprehensive policy.
• Bullying policies should not examine intent or include “re-education.” According to this ideal, a student who believes it’s okay to violently harass a gay student should never be taught to understand the nature of sexual orientation. Education about LGBT issues has been repeatedlyproven to make schools safer, but ADF remains adamantly opposed.
• Bullying policies should never highlight certain characteristics (i.e. race, sexual orientation). Obviously, any sensible bullying policy covers all students, but it’s important to recognize certain types of bullying that often go unaddressed. Minnesota’s Anoka-Hennepin School District provides a prime example of how teachers and administrators neglected to interrupt anti-gay bullying or properly protect LGBT students.
• Bullying policies should have no reporting requirements. The only way to actually address a bullying problem is to identify it. A policy with no reporting requirements for teachers is a policy with no accountability. ADF worries teachers and staff might “over-report bullying,” again, seeking to protect the bullies and not the victims.
• Bullying policies should ignore cyberbullying and off-campus speech. Studies have shown that 90 percent of teens have experienced cyberbullying, but ADF believes it’s possible to distinguish between cyberbullying that happens on-campus or off-campus. Again, this reflects a commitment to protecting bullies’ speech instead of victims’ learning environment.
• Bullying policies should not include any trainings or materials from “homosexual activist groups.” ADF doesn’t believe students should actually learn about why not to bully, only how not to bully, suggesting schools “limit the instruction to a description of bullying behavior.” Learning about LGBT people is important for all young people, even if they may not identify, and it’s completely outlandish for ADF to claim such materials “promote homosexual behavior.”
• Bullying policies should always inform parents if their child is bullied or accused of bullying. This policy would be incredibly problematic for LGBT students who experience bullying, who would very likely be outed to their parents through this process. The leading reason 40 percent of homeless youth are LGBT is family rejection, so schools should consider each case independently and act in ways that best protect each child. ADF’s priority is a notion of “parents’ rights” that can further harm LGBT students or protect bullies from remediation.
• Bullying policies should ignore anonymous complaints. Bullying creates a culture of fear, even for bystanders. Any student with the courage to report bullying, even anonymously, should be taken seriously. Again, ADF’s policy blatantly ensures more bullying goes unaddressed.
• Bullying laws should exempt private schools. The state guarantees an educational experience for all young people, and just as private schools should be held accountable to academic standards, so too should they be held accountable for safe learning environments.

Point for point, the Alliance Defense Fund’s model policies, promoted by Focus on the Family’s True Tolerance page, intentionally protect bullies while making LGBT students more vulnerable to victimization and harassment. This “yardstick” measures only one thing: intolerance.

 

Our guest blogger is Hilary Brandenburg, intern at the Center for American Progress.

This weekend, Americans will take a day off from work to celebrate Labor Day, a day dedicated to the progress Americans have achieved in the workplace over the years. The U.S. Department of Labor website notes that Labor Day is a “yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country.” However, not all workers are equal under the law. LGBT workers continue to face high rates of workplace discrimination and often receive unequal benefits for equal work for them and their families.

Knowing this, the Center for American Progress and AFSCME, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the nation’s largest and fastest growing public services employees union, released a report entitled “Gay and Transgender Discrimination in the Public Sector: Why It’s a Problem for State and Local Governments, Employees, and Taxpayers.”

According to this report, a majority of state government employees are currently working in states that fail to offer legal protections to LGBT public sector workers. With approximately one million LGBT individuals in America working in state, local, or municipal government, only 21 states and the District of Columbia have any laws specifically protecting gay workers, and only 16 of those do so for transgender workers. Looking at coverage:

• 57 percent of state employees work in a state where no legal protections are afforded to gay individuals.
• 69 percent live in state where no legal protections are afforded to transgender individuals.
• Only a minority of state employees (just over four in ten, or 42.6 percent) work in a state with a law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.
• Only three in ten (31.8 percent) work in a state with a law also prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity.

Similarly, CAP and AFSCME find that a majority (53 percent) of state government employees do not have equal access to health insurance for them and their partners.

Discrimination and unequal treatment are unfortunate realities for far too many of our nation’s LGBT public sector workers. This is harmful to LGBT workers who all too often find themselves without a job or a way to make ends meet due to employment discrimination. This is harmful to running an efficient public sector, since discrimination imposes costs and inefficiencies for governments. And it is harmful to taxpayers, who are left with the bill to cover these costs.

Among many policy recommendations, this report calls on Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, EDNA, making discrimination against a worker based on their sexual orientation or gender identity a crime in all 50 states. States should similarly pass laws prohibiting discrimination against LGBT workers and laws the extend the full range of workplace benefits to employees with same-sex partners.

LGBT public servants go to work every day as firefighters, teachers, policemen and women, nurses, library workers, child care providers, and sanitation workers to provide for our communities, to help care for our children and families, and to keep America functioning. This Labor Day, we must continue to fight for progress and demand better for LGBT employees, taxpayers, and our public sector.

Gay Republicans have had their own dim spotlight at the Republican National Convention as they peddle apologetics for their party while trying to advance LGBT equality from within. Log Cabin Republicans were proud to have been part of the platform drafting committee, but the GOP ended up approving one of the most anti-gay platforms ever. One member of LCR, Casey Pick, admitted to NPR that the platform might very well have been a “hostile” retaliation to their presence:

PICK: When you back someone into a corner, they fight back twice as hard. The platform is ugly and harmful. We lost, and you could say the social conservatives in our party dropped the hammer harder because we were there.

Former Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), who is openly gay, believes 2012 will be the last year for such vitriol, but Pick’s comments suggest otherwise. The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins had a prominent leadership role on the drafting committee and personally drafted much of its social policy. Though LCR has achieved visibility at this year’s convention, their contributions seem particularly unwelcome in contrast. Though the group admitted the platform was “bad with a capital ‘B,’” it continues to defend the Romney/Ryan ticket, compromising its supposed commitment to LGBT equality in favor of party politics.

GOProud has also taken advantage of the convention’s publicity, but unlike LCR and despite being a gay Republican group, they never purport to support any aspect of LGBT rights.